MovieChat Forums > In the Line of Fire (1993) Discussion > In the Line of Fire: Eastwood saves Hi...

In the Line of Fire: Eastwood saves His Career -- and Then Screws It Up Again


As I type this, In the Line of Fire is almost 30 years old and Clint Eastwood -- at age 91 -- will be the over the title star of a movie called "Cry Macho" to be released later this year. No movie star ever led a movie after age 90. Clint has made history.

That doesn't necessarily mean he's had the greatest of careers.

In the late 80's, as the director of his own very small scale movies, Clint started to cheat his fans and make very quick, low budget, "nothing" movies....it was almost an insult. The idea was that Clint's sheer stardom -- that face, that voice -- should be enough for people to show up.

But in the summer of 1988, when Clint brought us Dirty Harry V(The Dead Pool) -- it was TOO cheap, not much, big crowds didn't show up. Die Hard was the big budget action blast THAT summer.

One summer later, in 1989, the year of Batman and Indy Jones and the Last Crusade...Clint gave us...Pink Cadillac. Another nothing movie that didn't even seem to end properly.

Things got worse in 1990. An attempt to do a Lethal Weapon type thing with Charlie Sheen(The Rookie) proved an ugly and misogynistic misfire. An attempt to make a "serious" film -- White Hunter, Black Heart(with Clint playing a John Huston derivative)...nowhere.

I think people forget just how "down and out" Clint Eastwood was as the 90's began.

But he got two bits of luck.

One, famously, was the script he'd been hoarding for years that became "Unforgiven." The great script yielded a Best Picture winner and a modest hit for Eastwood, and a Best Director Oscar. But it was on HIS terms, yet again -- a mean, dour, grim anti-Western starring some old men (including Gene Hackman, Popeye Doyle finally working with his 1971 fellow icon Dirty Harry.)

The second bit of luck was actually...luckier. With Eastwood on the downslide...he was now willing to "work for hire" for other directors in other people's movies.

And he ended up -- for the first time in years -- in a REAL movie. A well made thriller, directed by a great action director (Wolfgang Peterson), with a well-written villain(John Malkovich) and a thoroughly professional look and sound. (No more with the "unpaid electric bill" look of Eastwood's dark self-directed films.)

Eastwood got In the Line of Fire after guys like Redford, Caan, and Ford turned it down.

And it was a hit.

But...alas: so was Unforgiven.

And as soon as he was done with In the Line of Fire....Clint went back to his old ways. Directing his own films. Cheaply and in the dark. He brought along some stars this time -- Kevin Costner and Meryl Streep and Gene Hackman again(as a murderous President in Absolute Power)....but Eastwood was back at his old stand.

Where he has remained ever since.

So let In the Line of Fire stand: the one REAL movie that Clint Eastwood has made in the last 30 years.

reply

Nice overview but a bit unfair. I really enjoyed Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino and more recently The Mule. Small films but lean and packing a punch. I take your point that it’d be nice to see him in bigger budget fare again, but then nobody is making quality big budget thrillers these days 🤷🏻‍♂️

reply

Nice overview but a bit unfair.

---

Yes, I re-read the post and realized that it was a bit "over-general."

I will stand by my belief that Eastwood -- almost pathologically -- made his pre-1990 films as tightly and cheaply as possible. The LA Times ran an article that proved my point -- evidently he made his final films of the 80's with progressively shorter shooting schedules, taking less and less time to make movies, and sometimes cutting scenes out to avoid filming time. I recall Pink Cadillac's ending just sort of ...petering out. Like a scene was missing.

The downturn that led to his going "outside" to In the Line of Fire was remedied by that film and by Unforgiven(very much in the "Clint" style. Eastwood(or the studios) started adding big-star co-stars to his films: Kevin Costner, Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones...

I think it was screenwriter William Goldman who noted that Eastwood did "something nearly impossible" -- he got hot again as a star, and that pushed him on through the decades where he is now.

Eastwood also got old, and wizened(for all his health, he couldn't avoid that) and he is a "specialty star" now -- he doesn't make the ladies swoon or the men crave his tough guy look -- but he's STILL HERE. Also since 2000, he really cut down on acting, stuck mainly to directing...and made(I'm afraid) a lot of films people didn't see and Oscars didn't care about. (Invictus, Hereafter, J Edgar, that one with Angie Jolie.)

--

I really enjoyed Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino and more recently The Mule. Small films but lean and packing a punch. I take your point that it’d be nice to see him in bigger budget fare again, but then nobody is making quality big budget thrillers these days

---

That's true about thrillers...and a shame. Thrillers used to be a big deal , from Hitchcock to "one shots" like Charade and Three Days of the Condor and Marathon Man...and In the Line of Fire. Now...comic books.

CONT

reply

I really enjoyed Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, and more recently, The Mule.

--

I'd say those movies were hits and got Oscars because they had great scripts. Eastwood made them cheaply(the climactic championship fight in MDB looks like it is being held in a darkened gym), but the scripts and the co-stars were great. Eastwood's performances there were great, too. He's now our "get off my lawn" grumpy old man. But with a heart in Million Dollar Baby.

And yes, I recall now that he directed, but did not act in, American Sniper -- among the biggest hits of the year. There, it may have been the material(and America's hidden "other half" who came out to see it) that made the difference.

Still, it is an interesting career for Mr. Eastwood. He outlasted and outlived competitors like Lee Marvin, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, Burt Reynolds, and Arnold but has done it on his terms: as a director first, a star only sometimes....and a maker of a lot of cheap, minimal "nothing" films on a resume also filled with classics.

reply

Mystic River
Flags of Our Fathers
Letters from Iwo Jima

reply

The second two were not widely seen.

..and Mystic River will always confound me.

I know it won Best Actor and other Oscars and almost won Best Picture. So this is just a personal opinion.

I thought it started well but..piled on the coincidences at the end, unbelievably. I thought Sean Penn massively overacted.

And it had that thing that late era Eastwood movies have: a theme written by Eastwood himself. A lot of his movies have these rather "tinkling on the piano keys" ditties that Eastwood puts over the movie and then has a full orchestra interpret. Its kind of like "star home movies."

Still, a career that's lasting into his 90's makes Clint Eastwood both historic(the longest lived movie star over the title to date) AND prolific. (Early iconic-classics like the Leone films and Dirty Harry; the hit monkey movies Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby as Best Pictures.)

reply

Great post escarle.

First I would add that Unforgiven wasn't just a modest hit, it was a huge hit. It grossed over 100 million (back when that meant something), and of course it has gone on to become one of the greatest films ever made.

I am, perhaps like you, a fan of the stuff he did before his great comeback with Unforgiven. He did something substantial in every decade. I recently saw Pale Rider (1985), and it's a helluva film really.

Also worth mentioning is that the same year he did In the Line of Fire, he also directed the splendid A Perfect World (1993) - which is highly underrated. Also Bridges of Madison County in 1995, which is a very emotional and heartfelt film.

Then there was kind of a drop-off in his career, with several unmemorable films like Absolute Power, True Crime, Space Cowboys and Blood Work, before makng a huge comeback again with Million Dollar Baby. His directing career post Million Dollar baby has been impressive, but I will mention one movie that hasn't been brought up: Changeling. A fascinating look at police corruption back in the 20's.

reply

I’ve always found Unforgiven to be overrated. It’s a good film with some memorable moments but I never once believe that Clint and Morgan, both genteel old men, used to be serial rapists and child murderers 🤣

Also, Hackman is very solid in the film, but I’ve seen him far more dynamic and electric elsewhere, such as in Crimson Tide, yet he was lavished with praise and awards for this performance?

reply